Argumentation in science education research: Perspectives from Europe

Science Education Research and Practice in Europe: Retrosspective and Prospecctive

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 253-289

  Erduran, Sibel ^a,b   Jimenez Aleixandre, Maria Pilar ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b KRISTIANSTAD UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SANTIAGO DE COMPOSTELA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84991598937     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-6091-900-8     Document Type: Chapter

References (123)

1. Akiguet S., & Piolat A. (1996) Insertion of Connectives by 9- to 11-Year-Old Children in an Argumentative Text, Argumentation, Volume 10, No. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
2. Albe, V. (2005). Un jeu de role sur une controverse socio-scientifique actuelle: une strategie pour favoriser la problematisation? Aster, 40, 67-94.
3. Albe, V. (2008a). When scientific knowledge, daily life experience, epistemological and social considerations intervene: students' argumentation in group discussions on a socio-scientific issue. Research in Science Education, 38, 67-90.
4. Albe, V. (2008b). Students' positions and considerations of scientific evidence about a controversial socio-scientific issue. Science & Education, 17(8-9), 805-827.
5. Albe, V. (2009). Enseigner des controverses. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
6. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., and Suthers, D. (2003) Argumentation, Computer Support, and the Educational Context of Confronting Cognitions, Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Vol.1. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., and Suthers, D. (Eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 1-26.
7. Balacheff, N., Ludvigsen, S., de Jong, T., Lazonder, A., Barnes, S., Montandon, L. (Eds.). (2009). Technology-Enhanced Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
8. Baker, M.J., Quignard, M., Lund, K. & Séjourné, A. (2003) Computer-supported collaborative learning in the space of debate. In B. Wasson, S. Ludvigsen & U. Hoppe (Eds.) Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments: Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning 2003, pp. 11-20. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 4th edition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
10. Baruch, S., & Perret-Clermont, A-N. (Ed.). (2008). ESCALATE's White Book on Argumentation and Enquiry-Based Science Learning. Project Report, Co-Funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme. Project Number 020790(SAS6).
11. Berland, L. K. & Reiser, B. (2009). Making sense of argumentation and explanation. Science Education, 93(1), 26-55.
12. Brassart D. G. (1996) Didactique de l'argumentation écrite: Approches psycho cognitives, Argumentation, Volume 10, No. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Braund, M., Erduran, S., Simon, S., Taber, J., & Tweats, R. (2004). Teaching ideas and evidence in science at key stage 3. Science Teacher Education, 41, pp. 12-13.
14. Bravo-Torija, B & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P. (2012). Progression in compelxity: Contextualizing sustainable marine resources management in a 10 grade classroom. Research in Science Education, 42(1), 5-23.
15. Bronckart, J.-P. (1996). Activité langagière, textes et discours: pour un interactionnisme socio-discursif. Paris: Delachaux & Niestlé.
16. Buty, C. & Plantin, C. (Eds.) (2008a). Introduction. L'argumentation à l'épreuve de l'enseignement des sciences et vice-versa [Introduction. Argumentation put to the test of science education and vice-versa]. In C. Buty, & C. Plantin (Eds.) Argumenter en classe de sciences [Engaging in argumentation in science classrooms] (pp 17-41). Lyon: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique
17. Buty, C. & Plantin, C. (Eds.) (2008b). Argumenter en classe de sciences [Engaging in argumentation in science classrooms]. Lyon: Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique.
18. Castells, M., Konstantinidou, A., & Erduran, S. (2010). Argumentation and scientific conceptions: a comparison between Catalan and English students. M. F. Tasar & G. Cakmakci (Eds.), Contemporary science education research: international perspectives, (pp. 87-97). Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi.
19. Cetin, P. S., Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2010). Understanding the nature of chemistry and argumentation: the case of pre-service chemistry teachers. Ahi Evran Universitesi Kirsehir Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi, Special Issue on Nature of Science in Science Education, 77(4), pp. 41-59.
20. Department of Education, South Africa. (2003). National curriculum statement grades 10-12 (General). Physical sciences. Pretoria: Author.
21. DfES/QCA (2006). Science: The National Curriculum for England and Wales. London: HMSO.
22. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287-312.
23. Ducrot, O. (1972). Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique [To say and not to say. Principles of linguistic semantics]. Paris: Hermann [3rd edition, revised, 1998].
24. Ducrot, O. & Todorov, T. (1987). Encyclopaedic dictionary of the sciences of language. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
25. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Quality argumentation and epistemic criteria. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 159-175). Dordrecht: Springer.
26. Duschl, R. A. & Grandy, R. E. (Eds.) (2008). Teaching scientific inquiry. Recommendations for research and implementation. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
27. Duschl, R., Erduran, S., Grandy, R., & Rudolph, J. (2006). Guest editorial: science studies and science education. Science Education, 90(6), 961-964.
28. Duschl, R., Ellenbogen, K., & Erduran, S. (1999, April). Understanding dialógica argumentation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal.
29. Engeström, Y. (2005). Developmental work research: Expanding activity theory in practice. Berlin: Lehmanns Media.
30. Erduran, S. (2012). The role of dialogue and argumentation. In, John Oversby (Ed.), Guide to Research in Science Education, pp. 106-116, Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
31. Erduran, S., Ingram, N., & Yee, W. (2012). Argumentation and Practical Work in Science Teachers? Professional Development. STEAM Project Resources. Bristol: University of Bristol. www.apisa.co.uk
32. Erduran, S., & Pabuccu, A. (2012). Bonding chemistry and argument: promoting teaching and learning of argumentation through chemistry stories. Bristol: University of Bristol.
33. Erduran, S., & Yan, X. (2010). Salvar las brechas en la argumentacion: el desarrollo profesional en la ensenanza de la indagacion cientifica. Alambique, 63, pp. 76-87.
34. Erduran, S., & Villamanan, R. (2009). Cool argument: engineering students' arguments about thermodynamics in the context of Peltier effect in refrigeration. Educación Química, 20(2), pp. 119-125. (Special Issue on Argumentation in Science Education)
35. Erduran, S., & Yan, X. (2009). Mind gaps in argument: continuing professional development to support the teaching of scientific inquiry. Booklet and DVD. Bristol: University of Bristol.
36. Erduran, S. (2008). Methodological foundations in the study of argumentation in science classrooms. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 47-69). Dordrecht: Springer.
37. Erduran, S. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (Eds.) (2008). Argumentation in science education. Perspectives from classroom-based research. Dordrecht: Springer.
38. Erduran, S. (Ed.) (2007). Editorial: Special Issue on Argument, Discourse and Interactivity. School Science Review, 88(324), 31-40.
39. Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. (2007). Exemplary teaching of argumentation: a case study of two science teachers. In R. Pinto & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 403-415), Dordrecht: Springer.
40. Erduran, S. (2007). Breaking the law: promoting domain-specificity in science education in the context of arguing about the Periodic Law in chemistry. Foundations of Chemistry, 9(3), 247-263.
41. Erduran, S. (2006). Promoting ideas, evidence and argument in initial science teacher training. School Science Review, 87(321), 45-50.
42. Erduran, S., Ardac, D. & Yakmaci-Guzel, B.(2006). Learning to teach argumentation: case studies of pre-service secondary science teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science and Technology Education, 2(2).
43. Erduran, S., Simon, S., & Osborne, J. (2004). TAPping into argumentation: developments in the use of Toulmin's Argument Pattern for studying science discourse. Science Education, 88(6), 915-933.
44. European Union (2006). Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union, 30-12-2006, L 394/10-L 394/18. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ: L:2006:394:0010:0018:en:PDF)
45. Evagorou, M. (2009). Argue-WISE: Exploring young students' features of collaborative argumentation. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. King's College London.
46. Evagorou, M., & Osborne, J. (2007). Argue-WISE: using technology to support argumentation in science. School Science Review, 89(327), 103-109.
47. Evagorou, M. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P.,& Osborne, J. (2012). 'Should we kill the grey squirrels?' study expliring students' justifications and decision-making. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 401-428.
48. Garratt, J., Overton, T., & Threlfall, T. (1999). A Question of Chemistry: Creative Problems for Critical Thinkers. Harlow: Pearson.
49. Gilbert, J. K., & Watts, D. M. (1983). Concepts, Misconceptions and alternative conceptions: Changing perspective in Science Education. Studies in Science Education, 10, 61-98.
50. Goldsworthy, A., Watson, R., & Wood-Robinson, V. (2000). Developing understanding in scientific enquiry. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
51. Grace, M. (2009). Developing high quality decision-making discussions about biological conservation in a normal classroom setting. International Journal of Science Education, 31(4), 551-570.
52. Grace, M., & Ratcliffe, M. (2002). The science and values that young people draw upon to make decisions about biological conservation issues. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1157-1169.
53. Grize, J-B. (1996). Logique naturelle et communication [Natural logic and communication]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
54. Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P. (2008). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom- based research (pp. 91-115). Dordrecht: Springer.
55. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). 10 Ideas Clave. Competencias en argumentación y uso de pruebas (10 key ideas. Competences on argumentation and use of evidence). Barcelona: Graó.
56. Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P. & Erduran, S. (2008). Argumentation in science education: An overview. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91-115). Dordrecht: Springer.
57. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & López Rodriguez, R. (2001). Designing a field code: environmental values in primary school. Environmental Education Research, 7(1), 5-22.
58. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Agraso, M. F., & Eirexas, F. (2004, April). Scientific authority and empirical data in argument warrants about the Prestige oil spill. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting. Vancouver.
59. Jiménez Aleixandre, M. P., Bugallo, A., & Duschl, R. A. (2000). "Doing the lesson" or "doing science": Argument in high school genetics. Science Education, 84(6), 757-792.
60. Jiménez Aleixandre, M.P., Díaz, J., & Duschl, R. A. (1999). Plant, animal or thief? Solving problems under the microscope. In M. Bandiera, S. Caravita, E. Torracca & M. Vicentini (Eds.) Research in Science Education in Europe, (pp 31-39). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
61. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Puig, B. & Gallástegui, J. R. (2010). Report on Argumentation and Teacher Education in Europe. Trondheim: S-TEAM (Science Teacher Education Advanced Methods) /NTNU.
62. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P., Gallástegui-Otero, J. R., Eirexas-Santamaría, F. & Puig-Mauriz, B. (2009) Resources for introducing argumentation and the use of evidence in science classrooms. Santiago de Compostela: Danú. Project Mind the Gap [Available in Galician and Spanish]. Downloadable in www.rodausc.eu
63. Jiménez-Aleixandre M.P., López Rodriguez R. & Erduran, S. (2005, April). Argumentative quality and intellectual ecology: A case study in primary school. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual Meeting. Dallas, TX.
64. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. & Federico-Agraso, M. (2009). Justification and persuasion about cloning: Arguments in Hwang's paper and journalistic reported versions. Research in Science Education, 39(3) 331-347. DOI 10.1007/s11165-008-9113-x.
65. Jiménez-Aleixandre, M.P., & Pereiro-Muñoz, C. (2002). Knowledge producers or knowledge consumers? Argumentation and decision making about environmental management. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 1171-1190.
66. Jorde, D., & Mork, S. (2007). The contribution of information technology for inclusion of socioscientific issues in science: the case of wolves in Norway. In, D. Corrigan, J. Dillon, & R. Gunstone (Eds)., The Re-Emergance of Values in Science. Sense Publishers: Rotterdam.
67. Jorde, D., Strømme, A., Sørborg, Ø., Erlien, W., & Mork, S. M. (2003). Virtual Environments in Science. Viten.no (No. 17). Oslo: ITU.
68. Kaya, E., Erduran, S., & Cetin, P. (2010). High school students' perceptions of argumentation. Elsevier: Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 3971-3975.
69. La Velle, B. L., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argument and developments in the science curriculum. School Science Review, 88(324), 31-40.
70. Keil, F. C. (2007). Biology and beyond: domain specificity in a broader developmental context. Human Development, 50, 31-38.
71. Keogh, B., & Naylor, S. (1999). Concept Cartoons, teaching and learning in science: an evaluation. International Journal of Science Education, 21(4), 431-446.
72. Kelly, G. (2008). Inquiry, activity and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl, & R. Grandy (eds.) Teaching Scientific Inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99-117). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
73. Kelly, G. J. & Bazerman, C. (2003). How students argue scientific claims: A rhetorical-semantic analysis. Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 28-55.
74. Kolsto, D. D. (2001a). To trust or not to trust: pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
75. Kolstø, S. D. (2001b). "To trust or not to trust, " - pupils' ways of judging information encountered in a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 877-901.
76. Kolstø, S. D. (2006). Patterns in students' argumentation confronted with a risk-focused socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education, 28(14), 1689-1716.
77. Kolstø, S. D. & Ratcliffe, M. (2008) Social aspects of argumentation. En S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez- Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 117-136). Dordrecht: Springer.
78. Kortland, J. (2001). A problem posing approach to teaching decision making about the waste issue. Doctoral dissertation. Utrecht: Centre for Science and Mathematic Education (Cdß), Utrecht University.
79. Kortland, K. (1996). An STS case study about students' decision making on the waste issue. Science Education 80, 673-689.
80. Kyza, E, Erduran, S & Tiberghien, A. (2009). Technology-enhanced learning in science. In, N. Balacheff, S. Ludvigsen, T. de Jong, A. Lazonder, S. Barnes, L. Montandon (Eds.), Technology- Enhanced Learning, (pp. 121-134), Dordrecht: Springer.
81. Lazarou, D. (in press). The utilisation of cultural-historical activity theory for designing, developing and evaluating an educational game in primary science education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
82. Legardez, A. & Simonneaux, L. (2006) L'école à l'épreuve de l'actualité. Enseigner les questions vives. Paris: ESF.
83. Linn, M. C., & Hsi, S. (2000). Computers, Teachers, Peers: Science Learning Partners. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
84. López Rodriguez, R., & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2002). Sharing the authority to evaluate environmental attitudes: a case study in primary school. In J. Lewis, A. Magro, L. Simonneaux (Eds.) Biology education for the real world, Proceedings of the IV ERIDOB Conference, (pp. 319- 333). Toulouse: École Nationale de Formation Agronomique (ENFA) Université de Toulouse.
85. La Velle, B. L., & Erduran, S. (2007). Argument and developments in the science curriculum. School Science Review, 88(324), 31-40.
86. Mena Marcos, J. J., Sánchez Miguel, E. & Tillema, H. (2009). Teacher reflection on action: What is said (in research) and what is done (in teaching). Reflective Practice, 10(2), 191-204.
87. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Republic of Chile (MEC). (2004). Estudio y comprensión de la naturaleza. Santiago de Chile: Author.
88. Monteserin, A., Schiaffino, S., & Amandi, A. (2010). Assisting students with argumentation plans when solving problems in CSCL. Computers and Education, 54, 416-426.
89. Mork, S. M. (2005a). Argumentation in science lessons: focusing on the teacher's role. Nordic Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 17-30.
90. Mork, S. (2005b). ICT in science education: exploring the digital learning materials at viten.no. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oslo: University of Oslo.
91. OECD (2006). PISA 2006. Assessing scientific, reading and mathematical literacy: A framework for PISA 2006. Paris: Author.
92. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004a). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994-1020.
93. Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004b). Ideas, evidence and argument in science education. DVD and Resource Pack, London: King's College London.
94. Osborne, J. F. (1997). Practical Alternatives. School Science Review, 78(285), 61-66.
95. Ozdem, Y., Ertepinar, H., Cakiroglu, J., & Erduran, S. (in press). The nature of pre-service science teachers' argumentation in inquiry-oriented laboratory context. International Journal of Science Education.
96. Patronis, T., Potari, D., & Spiliotopoulou, V. (1999). Students' argumentation in decision-making on a socio-scientific issue: implications for teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 21, 745-754.
97. Plantin, C. (2004). On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation In E. Weigand (Ed.) Emotions in Dialogic Interactions (pp 265-276). Amsterdam: Benjamin.
98. Plantin, C. (2005). L'Argumentation. Histoire, théories et perspectives [Argumentation. History, theories and perspectives]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
99. Puig, B. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). What do 9th grade students consider as evidence for or against claims about genetic differences in intelligence between black and white "races"? In Hammann, M., Waarlo, A. J. and Boersma, K. Th. (Eds.), The Nature of Research in Biological Education (pp. 137-151). Utrecht: University of Utrecht.
100. Puig, B. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2011). Different music to the same score: Teaching about genes, environment and human performances. In T. Sadler (Ed.) Socio-scientific issues in the classroom: Teaching, learning and research (pp. 201-238). Dordrecht: Springer.
101. Ratcliffe, M. (1997). Pupil decision-making about socio-scientific issues, within the science curriculum. International Journal of Science Education, 19(2), 167-182.
102. Sadler, T. D. (2009). Situated learning in science education: socio-scientific issues as contexts for practice. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 1-42.
103. Scerri, E. (1994). Has chemistry been at least approximately reduced to quantum mechanics? In, Hull, D., Forbes, M., Burian, R. (Eds.) Philosophy of Science Association Vol. 1. (pp. 160-170). East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of science association.
104. Schunn, C.D., Anderson, J.R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23, 337-370.
105. Simon, S., & Maloney, J. (2006). Learning to teach 'ideas and evidence' in science: a study of school mentors and trainee teachers. School Science Review, 57(321), 75-82.
106. Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 25(2-3), 235-260.
107. Simmonneaux, L. (2001). Role-play or debate to promote students' argumentation and justification on an issue in animal transgénesis. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 903-928.
108. Simonneaux, L. (2008). Argumentation in socio-scientific contexts. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez Aleixandre (Eds.) Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp 179-199). Dordrecht: Springer.
109. Solomon, J., Duveen, J., & Scott, L. (1992). Exploring the Nature of Science: Key Stage 4. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.
110. Suppovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom cultures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980.
111. Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
112. Uskola, A., Maguregi, G. & Jiménez-Aleixandre, M. P. (2010). The use of criteria in argumentation and the construction of environmental concepts: A university case study. International Journal of Science Education, 32(17), 2311-2333.
113. van Driel, J.H., Jong, O. de, Verloop, N. (2002). The development of pre-service chemistry teachers' PCK. Science Education, 56(4), 572-590.
114. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Henkemans, F.S., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., Plantin, C., Walton, D.N., Willard, C.A., Woods, J., Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory; A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
115. Venville, G. J., & Dawson, V. M. (2010). The impacto f a classroom intervention on Grade 10 students' argumentation skills, informal reasoning and conceptual understanding of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 952-977.
116. von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students' argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101-131.
117. Walton, D. N. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
118. White, R., & Gunstone, R. (1992). Probing Understanding. London: Falmer Press.
119. Wickman, P.-O. & Östman, L. (2002). Learning as discourse change: A sociocultural mechanism. Science Education, 56, 601-623.
120. Yan, X., & Erduran, S. (2008). Arguing Online: Case Studies of Pre-Service Science Teachers' Perceptions of Online Tools in Supporting the Learning of Arguments. Turkish Journal of Science Education, 5(3), 2-31.
121. Zohar, A. (2008). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In, S. Erduran & M. P. Jimenez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: perspectives from classroom-based research, pp. 245-268, Dordrecht: Springer Academic Publishers.
122. Zohar, A. (2004). Higher order thinking in science classrooms: students' learning and teachers' professional development. Dordrect: Kluwer.
123. Zohar, A. & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students' argumentation skills through bioethical dilemmas in genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 35-72.